Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 2a (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Transcription

1 Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 2a C H A P T E R I MISHNAH. [AN ISRAELITE] WHO BUYS AN EMBRYO 1 OF AN ASS BELONGING TO A HEATHEN OR WHO SELLS ONE TO HIM, ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT PERMITTED, 2 OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM, 3 OR WHO RECEIVES [AN ANIMAL] FROM HIM TO LOOK AFTER 4 OR WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM TO LOOK AFTER, 5 IS EXEMPT FROM THE [LAW OF THE] FIRSTLING, 6 FOR IT SAYS: 7 [ I HALLOWED UNTO ME ALL THE FIRSTBORN] IN ISRAEL, BUT NOT IN GENTILES 8 GEMARA. What need is there for all these [cases mentioned in the Mishnah? 9 It is necessary [to state all these cases]. For if it taught only the case of HE WHO BUYS etc., I might have thought the reason was because he brings it [the animal] into the state of holiness 10 but where he sells [to a heathen], since he releases it from holiness, he should be punished. 11 He accordingly states the second case [WHO SELLS etc.] What need is there for the statement OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM? 12 It is to exclude the ruling of R. Judah Who said: A partnership with a heathen is subject to the law of the first-born. 13 [The Mishnah] accordingly informs us [that a partnership with a heathen exempts the Israelite from the duty of the first-born]. What need is there for the case OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO RECEIVES etc.? 14 It is necessary because [the Mishnah] wishes to teach the next case: OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM TO LOOK AFTER. And what need is there to state [the latter case itself.] OR [AN ISRAELITE] WHO GIVES etc.? 15 It is necessary. You might be inclined to assume that since the animal itself belongs to the Israelite 16 we should punish him lest one come to confuse this with another animal. 17 [The Mishnah] accordingly informs us that we have no such fear. We have learnt elsewhere: 18 R. Judah permits the selling to a heathen of a maimed [animal] 19 Ben Bathyra permits the selling of a horse. 20 The question was asked: What is R. Judah's ruling on selling an embryo to a heathen? Is the reason of R. Judah for allowing in that case 21 because the animal is maimed and therefore an embryo also being incapable of work is on a par with a maimed [animal]? Or is the reason perhaps because a maimed [animal] is not a frequent occurrence, 22 but a case of an embryo, being a frequent occurrence, 23 is unlike the case of a maimed [animal]? Come and hear: OR WHO SELLS AN EMBRYO TO HIM ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED; and R. Judah does not contest this! 24 But, according to your argument [in the cases mentioned in the Mishnah] OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP OR WHO RECEIVES FROM HIM OR WHO GIVES HIM, where [the Mishnah] does not expressly state that R. Judah differs, is it really the fact that he does not differ? 25 You must admit that he does differ without [the Mishnah] saying so; similarly here 26 also he differs without the Mishnah saying so. Come and hear: R. Judah says: If one received an animal from a heathen to look after 27 and it gave birth [to a firstling] we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. 28 Or if [an Israelite] gives [an animal] to him [a heathen] to look after, although he is not permitted. 29 we punish him by compelling him to redeem the animal 30 even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the priest. (1) A firstling. (2) For one is forbidden to sell large cattle to a heathen because the animal is worked on the Sabbath. (A.Z. 14b). (3) Both purchasing an animal between them. (4) The Israelite for attending to the animal receiving in payment half of the offspring, but the animal itself belonging to the heathen. (5) The Israelite sharing a half or a third of the offspring. (6) Which required the Israelite to set apart the first-born as holy to be given to the priest and in the case of the firstling of an ass, to redeem it with a sheep, failing which its neck was broken. (Ex. XIII, 12, 13). (7) Num. III, 13. (8) Lit., in others ; where a Gentile has any share in the mother or the offspring, the firstborn is not holy.

2 (9) HE WHO.... SELLS... FORMS A PARTNERSHIP etc., since obviously the principle that a non-jew sharing in an animal or its offspring exempts the Israelite from the law of the first-born and which is applied in the first case (HE WHO BUYS etc.), applies equally to the others. (10) The animal coming into the possession of an Israelite will now rest on the Sabbath and therefore, having thereby performed a meritorious act he should not be punished by being made liable to observe the law of the firstling. (11) By being compelled to redeem it and give it to the priest. (12) If where the whole firstling belongs to the Israelite he is exempt, how much more so when he only shares in the offspring as a partner? (13) Half of the value of the first-born is consequently given to the priest. (14) Since, clearly, the rule that a non-jew sharing in the animal or offspring exempts the Israelite from the law of the firstborn, applies here as in the previous passages. (15) What is the difference whether the Israelite undertakes to care for the heathen's animal or the non-jew undertakes to attend to the Israelite's animal? For in both instances, since the non-jew has a share in the offspring, the law of the first-born does not apply. (16) In the case of: OR WHO GIVES HIM etc., the whole animal, as well as half of the offspring. belongs to the Israelite. (17) In which the gentile has no portion either in the mother or in its offspring, claiming that exemption is also applicable in this instance. (18) A.Z. 14b. (19) An animal with a broken leg. The permission refers only to a place where there is no fear of carnal relations with animals. (20) Since a horse is generally used for riding, and if a gentile employed it in that manner on the Sabbath, there would be no breaking of the biblical prohibition of the Sabbath law, as riding on the Sabbath is only a rabbinic restriction. (21) In the case of a maimed animal. (22) And therefore we do not fear that if this is permitted, one would sell an ordinary animal to a heathen. (23) Because after its birth it is fit for work, and therefore if we allow it to be sold as an embryo, we may think that it is also permissible to sell an ordinary animal to a heathen. (24) And we are dealing with the case of an embryo and the Mishnah says ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED. Hence from the silence of R. Judah we may infer that the selling of an embryo to a heathen is forbidden according to every authority. (25) R. Judah differs from the Mishnah, as we have seen, with reference to a partnership with a heathen, and he also differs as stated later in the cases where an Israelite undertakes to look after a heathen's animal where a heathen looks after an Israelite's animal. (26) Where an Israelite sells an embryo to a heathen. (27) To share half the offspring between the Israelite and the heathen. (28) The animal, however, is not consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, since half of it belongs to a heathen. (29) To sell an animal to a heathen. (30) From the possession of the heathen. Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 2b Now, does this 1 not refer to the case of an embryo? 2 No, it refers to the animal. 3 But it does not say damaw [ its value ]? 4 Read dameha. 5 But does it not say and he gives its whole value to the Priest? Now if [the words its value ] refer to the animal, what has the priest to do with it? 6 [No.] 7 We are dealing here with a case where e.g., [an Israelite] gave him a pregnant animal to fatten; 8 since we punish him for [selling the] animal [to a gentile,] we also punish him for [selling] an embryo. 9 Said R. Ashi, Come and hear: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal]. 10 because it cannot be cured. 11 But if it could be cured, it would be forbidden. Now, is not an embryo also like [an animal] which can be cured? 12 Deduce, therefore, from this [that it is forbidden to sell an embryo to a heathen according to R. Judah]. Some there are who referred [R. Judah's ruling on an embryo] to our Mishnah: 13 AND WHO

3 SELLS [AN EMBRYO] TO HIM [A HEATHEN] ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED. May we say that the Mishnah is not in agreement with R. Judah? For we have learnt: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal]! 14 You can even say [that the Mishnah] agrees with R. Judah. For the case of a maimed [animal] is not a frequent occurrence 15 whereas the case of an embryo is a frequent occurrence. 16 Come and hear: R. Judah Says: if one received an animal from a heathen to look after and it gave birth [to a firstling], we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. Or if [an Israelite] gives [an animal] to him to look after, although he is not permitted to do so, we punish him [by making him, redeem the animal] even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the Priest. Now, does this not refer to the case of an embryo? No, it refers to the animal. But does it not say damaw? [ its value?] Read dameha. But does it not say and he gives its whole value to the Priest? Now if [the words its value ] refer to the animal, what has the Priest to do with it? We are dealing here with a case where e.g., an Israelite gave him a pregnant animal to fatten, and since we punish him for [selling] the animal [to a gentile,] we also punish him for [selling] an embryo. Said R. Ashi, Come and hear: R. Judah permits the selling of a maimed [animal] because it cannot be cured. But if it could be cured it would be forbidden. And an embryo is on a par with an animal that can be cured. Deduce therefore from this [that according to R. Judah it is not allowed to sell an embryo to a heathen]. The following query was put forward: If one sold an animal for its [future] offspring [to a gentile,] 17 what is the ruling? 18 You can put this question to R. Judah and you can put this query to the Rabbis. 19 You can put the query to R. Judah thus: are we to say that R. Judah only permits the case of a maimed [animal] 20 because he [the Israelite] will not come to confuse it with another animal and sell it [to a heathen], but in the case of a whole animal, 21 where he may confuse it with another, [he will say that] it is forbidden, or are we to say that perhaps, if in the case of a maimed [animal] where he severs all connection with it, 22 [it is allowed,] how much more so in the case of a whole animal where he has not severed all connection with it? 23 You can put this query to the Rabbis, thus: are we to say that the Rabbis only prohibit in the case of a maimed [animal] because he severs all connection with it, 24 but in the case of a whole animal, where he does not sever his connection from the animal, it is permissible; or are we perhaps to say that if in the case of a maimed [animal], where he will not come to confuse it [with another animal], they forbid [the selling to a heathen,] how much more so in the case of a whole animal, is there the fear [of confusion.] 25 But is the reason of the Rabbis because of what [is stated] here? 26 Has it not been taught: They, [the Rabbis,] said to R. Judah: 27 Is it not possible to couple [an animal with a broken foot] so that it gives birth? Consequently, the reason is on account of the [future] offspring? 28 This is what the Rabbis said [to R. Judah:] Our reason [why we forbid the selling of a maimed animal] is because he may come to confuse it with another [animal]. But as for you, why do you permit a maimed [animal]? [It is] because it cannot be cured, and therefore it is as if he had sold it to be slaughtered. 29 But do we not couple it and it gives birth? And since we couple it and it gives birth, he will detain it. 30 And thereupon he replied to them: When it gives birth, 31 for [in fact] it cannot take a male [for coupling purposes]. 32 Come and hear: OR AN ISRAELITE WHO GIVES [HIS ASS] TO HIM [A HEATHEN] TO LOOK AFTER. And it does not say although he is not permitted! 33 But, according to your argument, when it says: OR WHO FORMS A PARTNERSHIP WITH HIM, since it does not say [it is forbidden,] are we to infer that it is allowed? Has not the father of Samuel said: One must not form a partnership with a heathen lest he [the heathen] will be bound to take an oath to him and he will swear in the name of his idol and the Torah says: [And make no mention of the name of other gods.] neither let it be heard out of thy mouth? 34 You must, therefore, admit that when [the Mishnah] lays down that selling [to a heathen] is forbidden 35 the same ruling applies to a partnership [with a heathen]. Likewise here also when [the Mishnah] lays down that selling [is prohibited] the same ruling applies to kablanuth. 36 Why then does the Mishnah cite [the prohibition] specifically in connection with selling? 37 Because the main prohibition refers to the selling. Come and hear: R. Judah said: If one receives an animal from a heathen to look after and it gives birth [to a first-born] we settle [with the gentile partner] for what it is worth and half of its value is given to the priest. If again an Israelite gives an animal [to a heathen] to look after, although [he knows that] this is not

4 permitted, we fine him even up to ten times its value and he gives its whole value to the Priest. 38 But the Sages say, so long a gentile has a share in it, 39 it is exempt from the law of the first-born. (1) The statement that we punish him because he is not permitted to sell to a heathen. (2) I.e., where an Israelite gives a pregnant animal to a heathen to look after, both sharing the offspring while the animal itself belongs to the Israelite, the words although it is not permitted referring to the embryo. We punish him by making him give the value of the embryo to the Priest. Hence we can deduce that one is forbidden to sell an embryo to a heathen. (3) The words although it is not permitted refer to the animal, but an embryo is allowed to be sold to a heathen. (4) The masculine ending of the Hebrew word uhns, proves that it refers to the embryo. (5) With a feminine ending referring to vnvc (animal), which is a feminine noun. (6) The Priest having no claim on the animal itself, only on its first-born. (7) We cannot deduce from here the prohibition to sell an embryo to a heathen. (8) The Israelite and the heathen share the offspring and any increase in the animal's value after it is sold. (9) But elsewhere, R. Judah may hold that an embryo may be sold to a gentile, just as he allows the selling of a maimed animal. (10) Supra p. 2, n. 8. (11) To enable it to do work on the Sabbath. (12) For in time, after its birth, it will be fit for work. (13) And do not, in the first place, propound a query which they subsequently attempt to solve from the Mishnah. (14) And an embryo may be compared with a maimed animal since in both cases the animals are unable to work, and therefore R. Judah will hold that an embryo may be sold to a heathen, contrary to the ruling of our Mishnah. (15) As it is an unusual occurrence, R. Judah permits its selling, and we do not fear lest one will sell in other circumstances also. (16) If we therefore permit in this case, one may come to sell in other cases also. (17) The animal itself, however, he does not sell. (18) Should we punish him by forcing him to redeem the animal for having broken the rule prohibiting the selling of large cattle to a gentile? (19) Who differ from R. Judah with reference to a maimed animal. (20) Supra p. 4, n. 22. (21) As in our query, he may think that it is permissible to sell to a gentile a whole animal, since here, too, we allow him to sell an animal for its future offspring. (22) The Israelite leaving nothing for himself after selling. (23) Since the animal itself belongs to the Israelite and is not yet pregnant, and when the offspring is born, it will be in the possession of the heathen. (24) The selling her is complete and, therefore, there is the fear that one might sell also a whole animal to a heathen. (25) For another animal, where the selling is complete and the Israelite has no share in the animal, unlike the circumstances in our query, where the animal still belongs to the Israelite and there is as yet no offspring. (26) So that the above query naturally arises. (27) In arguing why they forbid the selling of a sheburah to a heathen. (28) We may therefore solve from here our query by concluding that according to the Rabbis it is forbidden to sell an animal to a heathen for the sake of its future offspring, and according to R. Judah it is permissible. (29) Therefore there can be no fear that one might substitute another animal which is not to be slaughtered and sell it to a gentile. (30) For the sake of its offspring, and one who sees it in the house of a heathen at the end of a year or two may come to the conclusion that it is permissible to sell an animal which is not for slaughter to a heathen. (31) You will then inform me. (32) Because of the animal's disability. (33) Now here the animal was sold to the heathen for its offspring and therefore we can infer that it is permissible to sell an animal to a gentile for its future offspring. (34) Ex. XXIII, 23. Out of thy mouth, caused by thy mouth, i.e., when you are responsible for the heathen's oath, which shows that it is not allowed. (35) The passage in the Mishnah ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT PERMITTED.

5 (36) Where the heathen undertakes to take care of the Israelite's animal in return for its offspring. (37) And not in connection with the other cases enumerated in the Mishnah. (38) Supra 2b. (39) Lit., has a hand in the middle. Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 3a Now, does not this statement 1 deal with the case of the animal? No. It deals with the case of an embryo. 2 I can also prove this [from the wording]. For it says: We fine him up to ten times its value; from which you may deduce that it refers to the embryo. 3 [The ruling that we punish him for selling to a gentile] supports the view of Resh Lakish. For Resh Lakish said: If one sells large cattle to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the animal] 4 even up to ten times its value. [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly ten times or not? 5 Come and hear: For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sells a slave to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the slave] even up to a hundred times his value. 6 The case of a slave is different, for every day he [his gentile master] prevents him from carrying out religious duties. 7 Another version [of this argument] is: Said Resh Lakish: If one sells large cattle to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him to redeem the animal even up to one hundred times its value. But we have learnt in a Mishnah: or if [an Israelite] gives an animal to him [a heathen] to look after, although he is not permitted, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the animal] even up to ten times its value! 8 By selling he severs all connection with it [the animal.] 9 But in the case of kablanuth 10 there is no severing of his connection with the animal. 11 [Does Resh Lakish mean] exactly [one hundred times] or not? 12 Come and hear: For R. Joshua b. Levi said: If one sells his slave to a heathen, we punish him by forcing him [to redeem the slave], even up to ten times his value! 13 The case of a slave is different, for he does not return 14 [to his master after being redeemed]. 15 Now in the case of an animal, what is the reason [why an Israelite is forced to redeem it even up to one hundred times its value]? Presumably, because it comes back [to its master]. Let us then force him [to pay] once over [the ten etc.]? 16 Rather the reason must be because the case of a slave [being sold to a heathen] is a rare occurrence, 17 and any case which is of a rare occurrence, the Rabbis did not [in their rulings] guard against. 18 But the Sages say: So long a gentile has a share in it etc. Said R. Joshua: 19 And both 20 expounded the same verse: [Sanctify unto me] all the first-born [whatsoever openeth the womb in Israel]. 21 The Rabbis hold that [the word] first-born is to be understood as meaning even if a portion [of a first-born] belongs to an Israelite. 22 Therefore the Divine Law inserts the word all implying that the whole [of the first-born must belong to the Israelite]. 23 R. Judah on the other hand holds that the word first-born [by itself] is to be understood as meaning the whole of the first-born. Therefore the Divine Law inserts all to show that even if any portion whatsoever [of the first-born belongs to the Israelite it 24 is subject to the law of the firstling.] Or if you prefer, I may say that all [the authorities] understand that the word first-born denotes the larger part [of the animal]. One Master, however, holds that the [purport of the] word all is to add 25 while the other Master 26 holds that it is to diminish. 27 And how much must a gentile's share be to exempt [the animal] from the law of the first-born? Said R. Huna: Even if it is no more than of the [firstling's] ears. R. Nahman demurred. Let him [the Priest] say to him [the gentile] Take your portion of the ear and go? 28 It was stated: R. Hisda said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders an animal nebelah. 29 Raba said: [The heathen's share in the animal] must be something which renders it trefah. 30 What is the point at issue between them? Whether a trefah can live. He who says that [the gentile's share in the animal] must be something which renders it trefah, would maintain that a trefah cannot live, 31 whereas he who says [the gentile's share] must be something which renders the animal nebelah but a trefah, he would maintain, that it is able to live. 32 The Rabbis said in the presence of R. Papa: The ruling of R. Huna on the one hand and the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba on the other, do not differ. 33 The one [R. Huna's] relates to it [the first-born;] 34 the other [the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba] relate to the mother. 35 Said R. Papa to them [the Rabbis]: Why is there this ruling in connection with the first-born? [Presumably] because we require [the condition of] all of the first-born 36 and it is not found here. 37 In connection with its

6 mother also, 38 we require [the condition specified in the verse]: And of all thy cattle thou shalt sanctify the males, 39 which is not found here. But there is in fact no difference. 40 Mar, the son of R. Ashi demurred: Why should this 41 be different from the premature [first births] of animals, which although they are not viable, are sacred? For a Master said: The words, [And every firstling that is a male] which thou hast coming from an animal [shall be the Lord's], 42 [denote the foetus] which dwells in the animal? There, 43 since there is no mixture of an unconsecrated [part of the animal], 44 we apply to it the words in the animal, all the first-born. 45 Here, 46 however, since there is a mixture of the unconsecrated part of the animal, 47 we do not read concerning it the words all the first-born. 48 R. Eleazar once did not attend the House of Study. He came across R. Assi and asked him What did the Rabbis say in the House of Study? He replied (1) The ruling that we punish the Israelite to redeem it from the gentile refers to the animal. Consequently we see that if one sold an animal to a gentile for its future offspring, we punish him according to both the ruling of R. Judah and the Rabbis, for the opponents of R. Judah only differ from him in connection with the first-born. (2) We punish him for making over the embryo in a pregnant animal to a gentile. But with the case of an animal sold for its future offspring, we are not here concerned. Therefore we are unable to solve the above query. (3) Since it says uhns ( its value ) with the masculine ending and also speaks of giving it to the Priest, v. supra p. 4, n. 2. (4) From the possession of the heathen. (5) Must the Israelite actually pay even ten times its value in order to redeem the animal or does the ruling only mean that even if the gentile demands a larger price than its worth, the Israelite is compelled to redeem it? (6) Now, since it says here a hundred times the value of the object sold and in reference to an animal it states ten times, we can infer that,the numbers are meant to be taken literally, for if it were otherwise, why does it not say in both instances either a hundred times or ten times? (7) And in the case of a heathen slave he would be preventing him from living up to the obligations resting on the Noahide. We therefore force the Israelite to pay even one hundred times the value of the slave. But in the case of an animal, we are not so strict and the ten times mentioned may be taken as an exaggeration. (8) Thus the Mishnah is contrary to the ruling of Resh Lakish. (9) We therefore force him to pay even one hundred times its value to the gentile. (10) The case in the Mishnah just cited where a heathen undertakes to attend to an Israelite's animal. (11) Since the animal still belongs to the Israelite. (12) Or is the one hundred times mentioned a mere hyperbole? (13) And since in connection with a slave it says ten times and in reference to an animal one hundred times, we may infer that the numbers mentioned are not to be taken literally, for otherwise in the case of a slave where lie is prevented from observing his religious obligations, the penalty should be much more severe than in the case of an animal. (14) According to Rashi he is automatically set free. Y. Git. 43b. R. Gershom says that the slave hates to return of his own free will to his former master, after the latter had sold him to a heathen. (15) And therefore we do not force him to pay more than ten times the value of the object sold, but in the case of an animal the number stated may be taken as precise. (16) Since the animal returns to its former owner it cannot be counted as part of the fine i.e. the Israelite should be forced to pay eleven times its value. (17) And therefore we do not force the Israelite to pay more than ten times the value of the object sold. (18) But in the case of selling an animal which is a frequent occurrence, the Rabbis were more stringent. (19) Var. lec.: R. Johanan. (20) The Sages and R. Judah. (21) Ex. XIII, 2. (22) In order to be subject to the law of the first-born. (23) Meaning literally all. (24) The animal. (25) So that the entire animal must, be in the Israelite's possession. (26) R. Judah. (27) Meaning any, so that if the Israelite has a share in the first-born, however small, he is required to carry out the

7 duty of the first-born. (28) For a first-born, even with a blemish, although unfit for sacrifice on the altar, is given to the Priest. (29) An animal that has died a natural death or was killed not in accordance with the Jewish ritual law, is called nebelah. If the gentile therefore had for his share an essential part of the animal the absence of which would make it impossible to perform ritual slaughter, e.g., its gullet or windpipe, since such a vital part of the animal was in his hand, it was as if the whole animal belonged to him and was therefore exempted from the law of the first-born. (30) An animal afflicted with an organic disease or disability as e.g., the removal of a certain portion of the knee. v. Hul. 42a. (31) And since the animal cannot live, it is as if it belonged completely to the gentile. (32) The gentile consequently does not posses a vital part of the animal. (33) R. Hisda and Raba however do differ. (34) Even if the gentile has the share of an ear in it, the law of the first-born does not apply. (35) And they differ as to whether the blemish must be of a nature which renders it nebelah or trefah. (36) In the possession of the Israelite so as to be subject to the duty of the first-born. (37) Where the ear belongs to the gentile. (38) Where the gentile has an element in the animal which makes it either trefah or nebelah. (39) Ex. XXXIV, 19, i.e. if the animal belongs entirely to you, then you are commanded to observe the law of the first-born. (40) Between the mother and its first-born, and consequently R. Huna on the one hand and R. Hisda and Raba on the other, do actually differ. (41) The case of a heathen having a share in an animal which renders it either trefah or nebelah. (42) Ex. XIII, 12 rda (sheger) coming from the word rda (shegor), the root being rd to dwell, sojourn. Or rda (shegor) that which it casts forth prematurely. (43) In the case of premature first births. (44) Shared by a heathen. (45) Whatever is in the animal has the holiness of a firstling. (46) In the case of the mother. (47) Shared by a heathen. (48) Which phrase denotes that any part shared by an Israelite makes it subject to the law of the first-born. Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 3b Thus did R. Johanan say: Even if [the heathen's share in the firstling was only something constituting] a slight blemish, 1 And as to what we have learnt: 2 A ewe which gave birth to a species of a goat or a goat which gave birth to a species of a ewe, is exempt from the duty of the firstling. 3 But if [the offspring] possessed some features [similar to the mother] it is subject to the [law of the firstling]. [Thereon R. Johanan commented that this 4 means that] it is [like a firstling with] a permanent blemish, on account of which it is slaughtered. 5 We well understand R. Johanan laying down a ruling with reference to a slight blemish, for this informs us that [the law] is according to R. Huna and excludes the rulings of R. Hisda and Raba. But his ruling regarding a permanent blemish what new thing does he teach us therewith? Is it to inform us that since it [the animal] is abnormal this is regarded as a blemish? [Surely] we have [already] learnt [this ruling 6 in a Mishnah]: Or if the firstling's mouth is like a pig, it is a blemish! 7 And should you argue that [in the Mishnah just cited] the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does not exist 8 but here the firstling has changed into a species [of animal] in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist, 9 this too we have learnt: If one of its eyes is large and one is small [it is a blemish]. 10 And a Tanna taught that large means large like a calf's and small, small like that of a goose. Now, we may giant your argument as far as [the case of a firstling] with a small eye like a goose is concerned, this being a species 11 in which the sanctity [of the firstling] does not exist. 12 But in the case of a large eye like a calf's this is a species in which the sanctity of the firstling does exist. 13 Must you not therefore admit that [the reason is] that we say since [the animal] is abnormal, it is regarded as a blemish? 14 No. The reason is because it is a sarua. 15 This really also stands to

8 reason. For we have learnt: The above mentioned blemishes, whether permanent or transitory, make also human beings unfit for the Priesthood. To these must be added in the case of blemishes of human beings, two large eyes or two small eyes. 16 [Because] with reference only to human beings it is written: Whatsoever man of the seed of Aaron 17 requiring man among the seed of Aaron to be with normal [human features]. 18 But the case of an animal, two large or two small eyes is not also regarded as a blemish. Now in the case of an animal with one large or one small eye what is the reason [why it is a blemish]? If because of the abnormality, then the same should apply to an animal with two large eyes or two small eyes? Then must you not admit that the reason [in the former case] is because of sarua? 19 No. I can indeed still say that [the reason why an animal with one large and one small eye is blemished] is because of the abnormality. And as for your question that the [same ruling] should apply to the case of an animal with two large and two small eyes, [the answer is that] there [in the latter instance] if [the change is] because of the animal's extra obesity, the two eyes need to be large, and if because of its unusual leanness, then both [eyes] have to be lean [small]. 20 There was a woman proselyte to whom the Achii 21 gave an animal to fatten. She came before Raba. 22 He said to her: There is no authority that pays any attention to the ruling of R. Judah who said: The partnership of a heathen [in an animal] is subject to the law of the firstling. R. Mari b. Rahel possessed a herd of animals. He used to transfer [to a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings while still in the womb]. 23 He [nevertheless] forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests. 24 The herd of R. Mari b. Rahel died. Now, since he forbade the shearing and the working of the animals and gave them to the Priests, why did he give [a heathen] possession of the ears [of the firstlings?] 25 [It was] lest he should be led to commit an offence. 26 If so, why did the herd of R. Mari die? 27 Because he deprived them of their holiness. 28 But has not Rab Judah said: One is permitted to make a blemish in a firstling before it comes into the world? 29 There, [in the latter case] he deprives the animal of the holiness of being sacrificed on the altar but he does not deprive it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests. 30 But in the former case, he even deprives it of the holiness [of belonging to] the Priests. 31 Or, if you prefer, I may say that R. Mari b. Rahel knew how to make a valid transfer to a heathen. 32 But we are afraid that another man may see this and go and do [likewise], thinking that R. Mari did nothing significant 33 [when transferring to a heathen]. 34 And thus he will be lead to commit an offence. MISHNAH. PRIESTS AND LEVITES ARE EXEMPT 35 A FORTIORI: IF THEY EXEMPTED THE FIRST-BORN BELONGING TO THE ISRAELITES IN THE WILDERNESS, 36 IT FOLLOWS A FORTIORI THAT THEY SHOULD EXEMPT THEIR OWN. (1) Like the ear of the animal which is not a vital part, in which case the Israelite is exempt from the duty of the firstling. (2) V. infra 16b. (3) For Scripture says: Or the firstling of a goat. Num. XVIII, 17. Both the firstling and the mother must belong to the same species and class i.e. a goat. (4) The ruling that it is subject to the law of the firstling. (5) I.e., outside the Temple. And eaten like any other firstling which possesses a blemish. It is, however, not suitable for sacrifice on the altar. This was R. Johanan's novel ruling emanating also from the House of Study, i.e., that a change in the animal renders it blemished. (6) That a change in the animal renders it blemished. (7) Infra 402. (8) That of a pig. (9) And therefore this would be the novelty in the ruling of R. Johanan, that even in such an instance it is regarded as a blemish. (10) Infra 40b. (11) Birds being exempt from the law of the firstling. (12) There is need therefore for R. Johanan to inform us that even in this case it is a blemish since there is a change in the animal. (13) And even so it is regarded as blemished.

9 (14) What new thing consequently does R. Johanan tell us in his ruling that a change renders it blemished, since this may be inferred from the Mishnah? (15) An animal whose one limb is larger than the other is called a sarua. Therefore were it not stated in the House of Study that a change in the offspring e.g., where its wool resembles that of a goat, renders it blemished, I should not have been in a position to infer this from the Mishnah, as sarua is a permanent blemish explicitly mentioned in the Scripture. (16) Infra 43a. (17) Lev. XXII, 4. (18) V. infra p. 289, n. 8. (19) And it is not because of the change that an animal with one long and one short eye is regarded as blemished and therefore there is need for R. Johanan to inform us that elsewhere a change in the animal constitutes a blemish. (20) So that two large or small eyes constitute no change. Now since we can after all deduce from the Mishnah that a change renders the animal blemished, one can still raise the question, what is there novel in R. Johanan's ruling? (R. Gershom). (21) Certain heathens. (22) To enquire whether the duty of the firstling applies. (23) To be exempt from the law of the firstling. (24) As if they were actually firstlings and holy. (25) For in this manner he carried out the prohibitions in connection with the firstling. (26) In case he should shear and work the animal. And therefore he rendered himself exempt by transferring a part of the embryo to a heathen. (27) Since his motives were good. (28) By transferring a share of them to heathens. (29) As the sanctity of a firstling only begins after its birth. (30) Like a firstling with a blemish whose shearing is forbidden and work with which is prohibited, still possessing a certain degree of holiness. (31) Although he actually observes all the prohibitions with reference to a blemished firstling, it is really rendered, owing to the share of the heathens, an unconsecrated animal. (32) To accept money from a heathen which is the valid method whereby a selling transaction is concluded with a gentile. (33) Lit., did a mere word. (34) By means of words only the transference was effected and no money was paid i.e., he simply informed the heathen that he had given him possession. (35) Presumably from the first-born of an ass. (36) This at present understood as meaning that since the Levites themselves exempted the asses of the Israelites in the wilderness, how much more should they exempt their own asses. Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 4a GEMARA. Did they [themselves] exempt? 1 [Surely] a man [a Levite] exempted a man [a first-born Israelite]; an animal [of a Levite] exempted an animal [an Israelite's first-born ass]. For it is written: Take the Levites instead of all the first-born among the children of Israel and the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle? 2 Said Abaye: The Mishnah means this: As for priests and Levites, their animals are exempt a fortiori. If the animal [the sheep] of the Levites released the animal of the Israelites in the wilderness, 3 it follows a fortiori that it should release their own. 4 Said Raba to him: But does not the Mishnah say: THEY EXEMPT meaning the Levites] themselves? And further, if it is [as you state], 5 they [the Levites] should be exempted even from [liabilities for] a clean animal? 6 Why have we learnt: They [the Levites] are not exempted from the law of the firstling of a clean animal only from the redemption of the first-born male, and the first birth of an ass! 7 No, said Raba; the [Mishnah] must be read thus: Priests and Levites exempt themselves [from the redemption of the first-born] a fortiori. If the holiness of the [non-first-born] Levites canceled the holiness of the first-born Israelite [in the wilderness], should it not cancel that of their own [first-born]? We thus find that man [the Levite first-born is exempt]. Whence do we know that this

10 also applies to an unclean animal? 8 The text says: Howbeit the first-born of man shalt thou surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. 9 Whosoever is required [to redeem] the first-born of a man, is required [to redeem] the firstling of an unclean animal. But whosoever is not required [to redeem] the first-born of a man 10 is not required to redeem the firstling of an unclean animal. Said R. Safra to Abaye: According to your interpretation, which is that [the a fortiori argument] also refers to their [the Levites ] animals, 11 a Levite who had a sheep [in the wilderness] to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass], could ipso facto release [his own], but he who did not possess a sheep to release [a first-born of an Israelite ass] could not release his own? Further, both according to your interpretation and Raba's, 12 [a Levite] of a month old who released [an Israelite first-born of a month old in the wilderness] 13 should therefore release [himself from the necessity of redemption,] while [a Levite first-born] less than a month old, who did not release [a first-born Israelite of the same age], should not therefore be able to release himself? 14 Also, a Levite's daughter 15 who gave birth to a first-born, should not be exempt [from redemption]. 16 Why then did R. Adda b. Ahaba say: If a Levite's daughter [married to an Israelite] gave birth, her son is exempt from the five sela's? 17 That is no objection, as Mar the son of R. Joseph [explained in the name of Raba who said: [Scripture says]: peter rehem [the opening of the womb]. The Divine Law makes [the duty of the first-born] depend on the opening of the womb. 18 But what of Aaron since he was not included in that counting [of the Levites], 19 then [the first-born of his asses] should not be released [from redemption]; (for it has been taught: Why is [the word] Aaron dotted in the Book of Numbers? 20 Because he [Aaron] was not in that numbering [of the Levites]?) Scripture said The Levites implying that all Levites are compared to one another. 21 And whence do we know [that] Priests [are included in the term Levite?] As R. Joshua the son of Levi explained. For said R. Joshua: In twenty-four places Priests are called Levites and the following [instance] is one of them: But 22 the Priests the Levites the sons of Zadok. 23 (1) The first-born of asses in the wilderness. (2) Num. III, 45. (3) From the redemption of the first-born of an ass. (4) The Levites own first-born of asses. Similarly, according to Abaye, just as the Levites themselves exempted the first-born of the Israelites in the wilderness, so they should a fortiori exempt their own first-born. (5) That we argue a fortiori with reference to the animals of the Levites. (6) From the law of the firstling, for the Levites clean animals exempted the clean animals of the Israelites in the wilderness. (7) Infra 13a. (8) I.e., that priests and Levites are exempt from the law of the first-born of an ass! (9) Num. XVIII, 15. (10) E.g., the Levites and priests who are exempt a fortiori, are therefore also free from redeeming their first-born of asses. (11) Inferring that the firstling of an ass belonging to a Levite and Priest is also exempt a fortiori. (12) For both agree that we argue a fortiori that the first-born of a Levite is exempt from redemption. (13) If the holiness of a plain (non-first-born) Levite of a month old released from holiness an Israelite first-born of a month old-as only the first-born of a month old were numbered, V. Num. III,40 how much more so should the Levite first-born of a month old release himself from redemption? (14) Why therefore does not Scripture state that the first-born Levites in the wilderness who were at the time of counting less than a month old had to be redeemed? (15) Who married an Israelite. (16) Since females were not included in the count in the wilderness. (17) The sum of money necessary for the redemption of the first-born. (18) We go therefore by the mother and since she comes of a tribe which is exempt from redemption of the first-born, we link the son with the mother and not with the father, that is provided the exemption in the wilderness extended to all Levites, even those who were not a month old at the time. (19) Num. III, 14 etc. Neither he nor his animals were included and therefore they did not cancel the holiness of the

11 first-born of the Israelites. (20) Num. III, 39: All that were numbered of the Levies which Moses and Aaron numbered. For all dottings of a word have the purpose of limiting and excluding something. (21) All Levites irrespective of age, including anybody performing sacred functions, such as the priests, all were exempt from redeeming the first-born of an ass. This answers all the questions raised above. (22) Ezek. XLIV, 15. (23) We see here therefore that the priests are described as Levites. Similarly where the word Levites is mentioned by itself, it also embraces the priests. Talmud - Mas. Bechoroth 4b Whence do we know [that the exemptions] 1 apply to all time? 2 The text says: And the Levites shall be mine ; 3 and they shall be means that they [the Levites] retain their status [for all time]. And whence [do we know] that [the Levite exempted the Israelite's first-born of asses in the wilderness] with a sheep? 4 Said R. Hisda: Money 5 is written [in connection with the redemption of the first-born] for all time; and a sheep is written [in connection with the redemption of the first-born of an ass] 6 for all time. Just as with the money prescribed for all time, they both redeemed [the first-born] at all times and they redeemed at that particular time [in the wilderness], so with sheep prescribed for all time, they [the Levites] both redeemed [the firstlings] at all times and they redeemed at that particular time [in the wilderness]. But it may be objected 7, that the case of money is different, because with it we also redeem consecrated objects and the second [year's] tithing! 8 Rather [we deduce from the following]. Scripture said: Nevertheless the first-born of man thou shalt surely redeem and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. 9 Just as in the case of the first-born of a man you make no distinction between all time and that particular time [in the wilderness, the redemption in each case being] with money, so [in the case of an unclean animal], you shall not make a distinction between for all time and that particular time, [the redemption in each case being] with a sheep. R. Hanina said: One sheep of a Levite exempted many firstborn of the asses of the Israelites. Said Abaye: The proof is that Scripture numbers the surplus of men 10 [over the Levites] but does not number the surplus [of Israelite] animals [over the Levites animals]. But what proof is this? Perhaps they [the Israelites in the wilderness] did not possess many animals [asses] to redeem? 11 That cannot enter your mind. For it is written: Now the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had a very great multitude of cattle. 12 Perhaps even so the ordinary [non-first-born animals] of the Levites just corresponded with [the number] of the first-born of the Israelites? 13 Scripture says: And the cattle of the Levites instead of their cattle; 14 one Levite animal instead of many [Israelite] animals [firstlings of asses]. But why can we not say that the word [ cattle ] also implies many [animals?] If so let Scripture write either cattle instead of cattle or their cattle instead of their cattle. Why does Scripture write cattle of... instead of their cattle? Deduce from this that one [Levite] animal exempted many [Israelite] animals. Said Raba: We have also learnt [R. Hanina's ruling]: And he can redeem with it [the sheep] 15 many times [the first-born of asses]. And R. Hanina? 16 He explains the reason of the Mishnah and what he means is this: What is the reason that he can redeem with it [the sheep] many times [the first-born of asses]? Because one sheep of a Levite exempted many firstborn of asses belonging to an Israelite. It was stated: R. Johanan said: The first-born 17 in the wilderness were sanctified; Resh Lakish said: The first-born in the wilderness were not sanctified. 18 R. Johanan said that the first-born were sanctified in the wilderness, for the Divine Law said that they should be sanctified, as it is written: Sanctify unto me all the first-born. 19 Resh Lakish said that the first-born were not sanctified in the wilderness, since it is written: And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee [into the land of the Canaanites] and it says subsequently: That thou shalt set apart [unto the Lord all that openeth the womb]. 20 From this you can infer that previously [to their entering the land], 21 it [the first-born] was not sanctified. 22 R. Johanan raised an objection to Resh Lakish's [view]: Before the Sanctuary was erected, 23 the High places 24 were permitted and the service [was performed] by the first-born! 25 He replied to him: [The service was performed] by those [first-born] who departed from Egypt. 26 It also stands to

12 reason. For if you will not say so, is a one year old 27 capable of performing the service? And [R. Johanan] how could he raise such a question at all? 28 This was his [R. Johanan's] objection [to Resh Lakish's view]. You would be right if you said that the holiness [of the first-born] did not cease [in the wilderness], 29 because then those [first-born] also originally born [in Egypt], did not have their holiness canceled. But if you say that their holiness ceased, 30 then those [firstborn] originally born in Egypt, should also have had their holiness canceled? 31 And [what says] the other [to this]? Those who were holy [the first-born of Egypt], remained holy 32 and those who were not hitherto holy, 33 [did not become] holy. He [R. Johanan] raised an objection: On the day on which the Sanctuary was erected, votive-offerings, freewill-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, firstlings and the tithe of cattle, were sacrificed in Israel! 34 Here, also, it refers to those [firstborn] who departed from Egypt. And [from the Baraitha] itself we can deduce this: On that day [firstlings] were sacrificed, but after that, [in the wilderness], there was no sacrifice [of firstlings]. 35 Some there are who say, Resh Lakish cited against R. Johanan the following: That day on which the Sanctuary was erected, votive-offerings, freewill-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass-offerings, firstlings, tithe of cattle were sacrificed in Israel, as much as to say on that day but after that [in the wilderness], there was no [sacrifice of firstlings]! 36 R. Johanan replied: Amend [the Baraitha] thus: From that day and onward. 37 And what does he tell us here? That from that day [these sacrifices] were permitted but not at first, from which we are to infer that obligatory sacrifices were not sacrificed on a High place. 38 Come and hear: Consequently in three places were the firstborn sanctified for Israel: in Egypt, in the wilderness, and when they entered the Land. With reference to the first-born in Egypt, what does Scripture say? Sanctify unto me all the firstling. 39 With reference to the firstling in the wilderness Scripture says: For the first-born of the children of Israel are mine. 40 With reference to [the first-born] when they entered the Land, [Scripture] says: And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee [into the land of the Canaanites]... That thou shalt set apart! 41 Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [This passage means] that in three places the Israelites were commanded concerning the sanctification of the first-born but they were not [actually] sanctified. 42 And were not also the [first-born] in Egypt sanctified? Did we not say that they were holy? 43 This is what the [passage] means: In some [of the three places referred to], [the first-born] were sanctified, and in some, they were not sanctified. 44 R. Papa demurred: And were not the first-born sanctified in the wilderness? Behold it is written: Number all the first-born males of the children of Israel. 45 Rather [if the above dispute was] stated, it was stated as follows: R. Johanan said: They [the first-born] were sanctified and did not cease [from their holiness]. 46 But Resh Lakish said that they were sanctified [temporarily] (1) For priests and Levites. (2) And not limited to the wilderness. (3) Num. III, 45. (4) Perhaps the verse And the cattle of the Levites instead of all the firstlings among the cattle of the children of Israel, (Num. III, 41.) means that the first-born of the Levite's ass exempted the Israelite's firstling of an ass, but not the sheep, (R. Gershom). (5) Num. XVIII, 16. (6) Ex. XIII, 13. (7) To this analogy between money and sheep. (8) Whereas we do not as a rule redeem sacred objects with a sheep. Consecrated objects are redeemed with money. V. Lev. XXVII, 15 and the second year's tithes are also redeemed with money, V. Deut. XIV, 25. (9) Num. XVIII, 15. (10) Of first-born Israelites who had to be redeemed with money. And since Scripture does not mention the surplus of Israelite animals over the Levites animals, we can infer that one Levite sheep exempted many Israelite animals. (11) And this being the case, one Levite sheep did not have to redeem many first-born of asses. (12) Ibid. XXXII, I. (13) So that there was no surplus and there is thus no evidence that the firstlings of the Israelites outnumbered the plain Levites animals.